Russell Wallace wrote:
> I'm assuming the Sysop will _not_ know what constitutes a sentient
> being, and we won't be able to formally define it either. This is the
> big difference between domain protection and both of Eliezer's sysop
> scenarios; I'm making more conservative assumptions about what will be
> possible, and being more modest in the problems I try to solve.
>
> For purposes of setting up the domains, the rule can be simple: each
> and every human on Earth (the ones who are old enough to make a
> choice, at least) gets to decide what domain they want to move to (or
Who decides what "old enough" means? And why is biological age the
critical metric, as opposed to, for example, a certain measure of
intelligence?

> stay on Earth, of course); that's an operationally adequate definition
> of "sentient" for that purpose.
Even assuming it was, there would still be a lot of other important
decisions to be made; for example:
What domains with what rules are actually created? How are the available
ressources divided between them? How is interdomain communication
regulated? Do 'sentient beings' only get to choose their domain once,
are they free to move between them at any time, or are parameters of the
individual domains responsible for deciding who is allowed to enter or
leave?

If you allow unupgraded humans to make final decisions about these
matters, suboptimal to catastrophic results are likely.
Keeping all of these settings adjustable into the indefinite future, on
the other hand, would provide possibilities for attacking individual
domains.